Nice speech - but do not let get facts in your way.
I disagree:
Long term-
Taxation, VAT, etc must be the same
Pension age, public and private must be the same
Finally EU contributions must be the same

Shall Germany help Greece and Italy instead of helping Poland through the EU?

Finally people forget why Germany violated the magic 3% stability clause - it was a historic moment reunification of a split nation. But again that`s history...

With all of the crises that have raised from the Euro Zone I think countries will start taking more steps to look our for number 1, their own country. This should help to stabilize the region but will limit growth.

atta boy, Sikorski. Now all thats left to do is hope. Hope that his audience understands what he's saying and not mistake it for anything else. This includes Germany. They shouldn't repeat history and fix its own disastrous inflation (like in WWI) or start conflict all over the world (like in WWII). If history were to repeat itself, it would lead to an even more failing economy, huge unemployement rates, and we would have an aspiring painter who was not good enough and decides to take over the world. Lets be smart now. Go Sikorski!

Honestly, I would not agree 100% to Mr Sikorski. In general he's right that it is on Germany to save the Euro. But let me comment on his six major points he outlined above:

1) Germany has been a net-payer for the entire European Union and probably contributed most to the establishment of the EU/Eurozone. Furthermore, one has to consider national interests. German public does not want to pay for hedonistic lifestyle other countries used to have.

2)Agree to Mr Sikorski's opinion.

3)Germany might be in danger of losing its AAA-rating, which induces an increase in the borrowing costs as well. Why should its borrowing costs shrunk?

4)True.

5) Printing money is an easy and dangerous way. One has not only consider short-term issues but long-term impacts as well.

6) RIDICOLOUS !!!! WW2 was a horrible mistake (apologies in advance for such a weak expression. was a catastrophe) and Germany regrets BUT it is not always and excuse to make demands towards Germany. As a (younger) German citizen, the argument is a joke!!

Yes you are right about 6, especially the history bit. Every European country has very bad things in it's history.

I think in this crisis though some controlled printing of money to reduce debt levels generally might be a good thing. There are alternatives but all of them have bad drawbacks, so we need to find the least bad alternative at this stage.

"I think in this crisis though some controlled printing of money to reduce debt levels generally might be a good thing."

That is true. And that it is already possible: QE for solvent institutions (banks).

Of course, controlled short term printing may not be dangerous, but free access for irresponsible governments to the ECB's printing press is extremely dangerous for all of us. That's why the ECB must stay independent and musn't allow ANY GOVERNMENT (not Germany, not Greece, not ...) to demand anything.

If we reach the point that the ECB must step in or the Euro is history the next morning, it might be even good for us if Merkel and Draghi meet secretly in a dark room, agree on some printing, and the next day Merkel screems and crys and denys any support for that. It would give the impression of the ECB's independence.

I woud stay with former chanceller H. Schmidt and insist that Germany DO has a responsability to Europe not least due to history.
German contribution to EU funds reflects the fact that it beneffited the most, dont illude yourself thinking they would do only for gentleness, transfer unions, of which EU is one, in smaller scale, means that in essence stronger ones pay to the weaker to consume their goods and keep their citizens from migrating to richer areas.

Historical responsibility is not a joke. Most democratic states accept this fact, so why Germany should not? And this is not only about words, but it needs to come down to acting.

Take colonialism—Great Britain and France have been accepting their responsibility for exploiting others and accept large immigration from countries like India, Pakistan, Algeria, etc. even today.

Even smaller countries like Poland accept this responsibility, even though it stems from events more distant in time than WW2. Polish state supports democratic movements in Belarus and pro-European sympathies in Ukraine not only because it would benefit the EU, but also for the fact that these territories used to be part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth several centuries ago and later had the bad luck to become incorporated into the USSR.

Historical responsibility has no "best before" date. As a (younger) Polish citizen I know that. Do you?

I think you cannot really deny that Germany has shown a lot of historical responsibility in the last 60 years. And I am sure that Germany will also show responsibility for Europe in this crises. But showing responsibility does not mean fullfilling the wishes of everybody all the time. However there has to be a sustainable solution for the eurozone, which you don't achieve by just printing money. And other countries also have to contribute to fix the problems.

There is no doubt about Germany's good will here. Although Sikorski's speech was directly addressed to the Germans, I dare say that indirectly it was to all other EU countries to accept Germany's role. Without further integration the EU will ultimately dissolve and Sikorski shows that well using some historic case studies. The speech should not be seen as a wish list, but rather as an appeal to all EU states to accept this situation — however uneasy it might become.

The time now calls for renunciations. Everyone needs to participate or none will. Germany is Europe's natural leader in this crisis and the sooner we all, Germans included, understand this simple fact — the better.

This is the most hypocritical post I have read in a very long time. Poland supports certain movements in Belarus and Ukraine out of hatred against Russia, that's the motive, and nothing else. Poles would support Caligula, Ghengis Khan, Idi Amin and even Lucifer himself if these guys would promise them to hurt or annoy the Russians. Your "historical reponsibility" is absolutely selfish.

What do you mean as "certain movements" in let say, Balarus? Do you know something about the regime of Lukashenka? We support the pro-democratic mevements there, not only in our (and Your!) best interest, but also because 30-40 years ago other people in the West did something for our freedom, now we are obliged to help other nations. Hatred has nothing in common with that.

I have several Polish friends and acquaintances. What comes out in every political discussion (after some shared drinking) is pure and burning hatred against Russia. I can understand that hatred, because the shitty cummunist regime in Poland, imposed by Russia, ended only some 20 years ago. But Poles shouldn’t play heroes IMHO when they simply act out their (understandable) hatred.

Trust me — there are many ways to irritate Russia (and Poland did this as well, but in Georgia). Ukraine and Belarus are different because of Polish cultural heritage, Polish minorities living there and because of the history of the region (which — can't deny — was to a large extend written with blood by Russia).

GuloJärv, it is the other way around and as you post just proves, it is people like you full of hatred against Poland. "Certain movements" as you put it are nothing else as "democratic" movements, for I suspect there is quite obvious reason you are not saying this.
You made me laugh and at the same time feel pity for you to see you need Caligula and Lucifer to back up your "arguments" being nothing more than just a poorly hidden racist rant.
I bet all the money I got you just make yourself feel better posting anti-Polish comments anywhere you can.
I'm unfortunately right, am I?... Get a life, dude!

That's simply not true, and as far as Belarus goes Lukashenko isn't always on good terms with Moscow, while Poland is consequent in opposing him. Why not follow the news to better understand the situation?

"Hey Joe, do you seriously believe that the country of Germany is even able to "save" Italy? I doubt it, Italy is too big.
But I am pretty sure Mario Monti is able save your country instead, and I have no doubt he will."

Joe here. I have decided Djilas is more apt than Tarkovsky these days...

I have just seen your comment now. I hope you are still reading this blog.
Having just read the news about the austerity/reform package I must respond to you.
His government intends to cut another 25 billion over two years. They are predicting a 4% deficit this year. A deficit of 1.6% in 2012 (with a slight recession of -0.5%) and a balanced budget in 2013. Monti appears quite seraphic about these numbers - which would have been sufficient one years ago and IMHO are not today. Not with our country being progressively frozen out of international lending markets.
The correct package was to say "Starting now in December - and for 2012 - Italy will have a budget surplus: small in 2012 but stronger in 2013." And then follow with more aggressive cuts to State personnel, benefits, a bigger tax on the Rich, taxes on the Church's commercial activities (at least) and a new wave of privatisations - none of which are being announced.
So apparently, the Vatican intends to use Ratzinger to introduce Euro-bonds, rather than accept such reforms here as would hit its own financial interests.

There is a story that at the conclusion of the Spanish Civil War, as the four columns of the Nationalist Army approached Madrid, its commander was asked "Which column will enter Madrid first?" To which he replied, "The Fifth Column, already inside the city."

Today there are 16 countries of the EZ (well, perhaps Finland no) asking the 17th, Germany, to accept Euro-bonds - to which Merkel says no. Of course, it will be the hidden 18th country that mints Euros (the City State of the Vatican) which will convince the German government to fold on the issue.

Personally, to answer your question, I am against Euro-bonds; and I do not ask, have not asked, Germans to bail out Italy - which certainly does not need bailing out as we have enough money here. What is intolerable for us is the constant harping on our financial credibility and dumping of our sovereign bonds as if we were a small, impoverished island of 6 million in the middle of the Mediterranean (apparently, too many films about Sicily have been seen around the world) and not a rich G7 country. Default is unthinkable here. But, our interest rates have been driven to such heights by the decision of the Merkozy to force Greece into default.
What I have asked therefore, is that Greece be saved: some 17 billion, GIFTED from and divided amongst the E7 (The Original Six plus Spain) would be a pittance for our budgets and be enough to bring Athens back under Maastricht's 3% deficit limit IMMEDIATELY. Half that amount in 2012 would suffice, until Greece would be able to get there under their own steam in 2013. Smaller numbers would suffice for Ireland and Portugal.

Instead of strengthening, temporarily and at low cost to us, Greece's ability to pay ALL ITS DEBTS, Merkel and Sarkozy have elected to destroy Greece's remaining financial credibility and attack Italy's, thus jeopardising the credibility of ALL EZ bonds on the markets. The firewall Merkel and Sarkozy are attempting to erect is not around Italy and Spain; it is around German and French banks that have lent to Italy and Spain. In the meantime Merkel and Sarkozy (plus Lagarde) are actively working to destroy Italy's financial credibility to save that of Germany and France. It was GERMAN banks that got burnt on American mortgage-backed securities, not ours.
It was GERMAN and FRENCH banks that are being burnt on the Greek default, not ours.
It was GERMAN and FRENCH banks that are so exposed in the GIP countries, not ours.
It was GERMAN and FRENCH banks that needed rescue or nationalisation over the crisis, not ours (how are things at Commerzbank?)

Italian taxpayers (our banks have no significant exposure to the GIP countries) have been bailing out German banks for the last 18 months, on our sense of solidarity and conviction that these loans will be repaid, within the context of general economic stability of the Euro-zone.
Now, Merkel and Sarkozy are telling us Italian loans to Greece will not be re-paid, Greece must default, Greece should never have been let into the Euro (a legitimate statement for historians, not politicians - obviously they intend to push Greece out of the EZ) and the credibility of Italian and Spanish sovereign bonds must be destroyed - but French and German banks saved, using the ECB.

This decision was taken and announced days before Draghi's investiture at the ECB (what a coincidence) and as Bini-Smaghi was being forced out (he had made public warnings about the disastrous effects of pushing Greece out of the Euro).

Why do you think, italy has been "bailing out german banks for the last 18 month"??? You´re right, the german bankers are not very clever, and made a lot of mistakes (my favorite: they transferred money to Lehman Brothers after they collapsed....)
BUT: The german banks with realy big problems are saved (not to say bought) by the german taxpayer, not the italian.

Well, you are defenitely right that Merkozy have made huge mistakes, the biggest was the Greek haircut and the resulting lack of trust in souvereign bonds for other countries. And the European bank capitalization is too late, it should have happened at the beginning of the crises when private shareholders would have been willing to deliver cash! Anyway, these are mistakes, not a conspiracy!

Greece could have been helped more efficiently. On the other hand, Greece has to accept help and moreover help itsself. And this crisis hasn't happened before in history, afterwards we are always smarter.

I cannot follow you straight, but maybe you can explain what you mean in more detail? Those German banks that you mean have to accept a loss. Italian tax payers are not loosing money (hopefully), but some Italian banks who are invested in Greece (basically bankers are loosing their bonuses).

To end this: I see Italy as a sleeping Giant, put down by Berlusconi. It is just a matter of time until it's awakening.

Thank you MilovanDjilas. It is a pretty blunt and clear statement of facts. Perfectly agree with you in every single point. I think it is about time "southern Europeans" start showing some pride. We've already singed the "mea culpa" enough. I've had enough bashing from Nordic countries about my country, many times coming from people who don't know a thing about my country. I think that the praising to Nordic excellence should be stopped at some point too. No one says you guys in the north are not good, but you also have your faults, and arrogance is probably the worst of all.

I used to be a great supporter of Nordic culture, but the chain of events, comments and attitude of some people are making me less and less enthusiastic.

I am really tired of the campaign of discredit being constantly brought upon the "PIGS" by the self righteous northerners.. I think you guys have a problem of envy in reality. Envy because WE are happy people, because we love our families, because we don't live to work, we work to live, and because we are not constantly competing with each other and trying to "keep up with the Joneses".. because for us money and fast cars are not the gage of success..

You are the most arrogant blogger here I have ever seen. Furthermore, you have a lot of prejudices and are simply not very bright!

"Nordic cultures", "Northerners", ... what is that bullshit? Maybe you should have a look in a lexicon what "Nordic" actually means. And look in a dictionarry what "racism" is about. Your simplifications here prove the size of your brain.

Nice, you can insult and say bad words (I think The Economist wont be happy).. That proves you are more intelligent than me.

I think you are getting very irritated because you are hearing the truth.

I am the first person to criticize my own country, because I know our own faults better than anyone else. However, the attitude of northerners (I don't know what makes you so excited about that word, it's similar to southerners except North) is just not right. Even Angela Merkel at some point said publicly: "There's no German miracle, the only miracle here is Germans get up early to go to work". I think that summarizes what a pretty important chunk of the northerners think.

Also comments on the lines of: "In Spain what do you have other than tourism and bullfighting?".. I mean, these are not prejudices, these are things I've hear first hand from northerners.

I still don't see what is so arrogant about my attitude, I'm just asking for a bit of respect.

But as has been pointed out a few times, Greek administration is SO INADEQUATE that there is very little in the way of Land Registry, so the government frequently doesn't know what land it owns (clear of any doubt and legal claims) that it could sell even if it wanted to.

Fantastic speech. I expected no less as having experienced many Poles in our country I have always found them well-behaved, good humoured intelligent, hard working and honest. You are lucky in Poland to have a politician of such integrity and honesty which seems to be lacking elsewhere in Europe.

It is unfortunate that the Germans have to pay, but the periphery is paying every day.

A fine speech from Sikorsky, except he ignored some basic facts. First of all, Germany does not owe living to the rest of the EU members, although most of them seem to think so, for some unknown reason. Germany has succeeded, regardless of the EU common market and her exports to countries, outside Europe continue to increase. What is stopping the other EU members doing the same? It is high time that the indebted EU member countries take a look in the mirror and admit to themselves, who really is responsible for their success or lack of it. Life is tough and the first thing one ought to be taught is that the success in your life is in the end of your arm and nobody owes you favours. Live with it.

You obviously did not read his speech at all as by doing as they are now ultimately Germany will pay a bigger price if the euro goes. The euro is set up to suit Germany. If you still had the DM your goods would be twice as expensive as they are now and who would buy them then?

Do you really think we will continue to pay back debts at 6.7% interest in this scenario?

Swizerland settled their problems exactly the way the Germans need to settle Europe's problems. You should help them. Don't count on the United States anymore. We are counting on Germany too. So is the world. I have spent many day's there, and you have your mountain's. Germany has nothing except an opportunity to save Europe and the world. They need all the help they can get and you too should look at this as an oppotuniyy to save Europe. This is the time to love Europe, or you will lose Europe one country at a time and maybe you will be the last with your mountains but you will have a lonely life. A United Europe can work.

Yankee Kid, thats my point: A united Europe can work. That means solidarity has to go both ways. I am not German (even I do have some German heritage), but I do feel very strongly about this constant ganging up on Germany, especially from lesser developed countries and their political elites (in a moral way).

Switzerland is not part of a united Europe but takes all the advantages it's 'neutrality' and it's closeness to three of the biggest world economies offers (Tax evasion, poaching business with low rates etc) with direct and tariff free access to the whole of the EU. Just imagine Germany would behave the same way...

Funny, Ireland received a lot of money from the EU to prosper. But adjusting taxes to the same level as the other Europeans? Definitely No.

Poland is currently the biggest beneficiary from EU subsidiaries, approx. 9 Billion Euros per year. Poland is known to fight hard for its benefits within the EU. Being flexible and supporting others - Definitely No. At least they seem to spend the money better than the Irish.

Still remember the times when the EU upstarts like Ireland, Spain etc. called Germany the weak man in Europe while prospering with German money. Now, after they fucked up, Germany is suddenly the only one benefiting from the EU. And once again we have to pay for everyone.

What do we get for all the help and money. Envy and hate.
Sometimes I really wonder if it is really worth the effort.

Es ist nicht so schlecht....
The attitude to Germans in Poland has changed dramatically over last 20 years. No hate or envy. Do you see (also in Sikorski's speech) we are on YOUR side? (fiscal discipline, automatic penalties for escessive debt etc..)

I don't think anybody tries to argue that. Rather, people argue that Germany benefits too - that it's a "win-win" situation. You may disagree, but I don't understand why it irritates you - after all it wouldn't be a bad thing if it was true. Instead Germans on this forum seem to believe it would somehow diminish the value of the German contribution to the EU.

What irritates me is that Germany is "now" the only country that ever benefited from the EU/Eurozone. Basically we forced countries like Greece, Ireland, Poland, Spain etc. into it and force-fed them all the EU-money to help them prosper in the past 2 decades.

Of course it was a win-win situation up to now. And the non german beneficaries should simply admit it. Without trying to blackmail Germany into providing additional huge sums of money.

I think you're exaggerating. Who says the other countries didn't benefit? In Poland it's often said in the medias. That's why Poles are so happy with the EU ;) (one of the nations that feel the most positive about the European Union).

Many people obviously believe that additional huge sums of money are needed to avert a catastrophe and that Germany is the key country that can make it happen. Even the Economist seems to believe that. I'm not saying I do, I don't know...but I don't want the EU to fail.

It is not so simple... We are grateful for Germany to be our advocate in Europe. Thanks! And now it is our turn; we support other countries because we think it is right. Geteilte Freude is doppelte Freude, isn't it?

"Figures for 2009 show that Germany was largest net contributor to the EU budget.

Poland has overtaken Greece to become the largest net beneficiary of EU funds, according to the latest figures released by the European Commission.

The report on the 2009 budget shows that Poland received €6.49 billion more than it paid in to the EU budget last year. In 2008 Greece was the largest net beneficiary, receiving €6.2bn more than it paid in. Poland received €6.1bn in cohesion funds in 2009 and contributed €3.13bn.

Germany continued to be the largest contributor to the EU budget with a net contribution of €8.12 bn."

Yes, we DO support EU! We try to use the funds as efficient as possible, thus creating jobs and prospect both in PL as well as in D. And we fully support German demands of tighter fiscal control and discipline. What more do you want from us?

Poland is biggest beneficiary, because it is the biggest country. But in your comments (and other's) it sounds like a accusation. How could Hungary, Latvia or Slovakia be bigger beneficiary than Poland? Sorry that we are so numerous (37 millions)....
Also, Germany is the biggest contributor, because it is the biggest country among contributors. Please,look at per capita net inflow/outflow....

>>"Yes, we DO support EU! We try to use the funds as efficient as possible, thus creating jobs and prospect both in PL as well as in D. And we fully support German demands of tighter fiscal control and discipline. What more do you want from us?"<<

I KNOW THAT!

Actually the opinion Germans have of Poles change alot to the better in the last years watching Poland getting really things done.
We appreciate that.

It's those guys/gals like justine who grate on my nerves...
I heard to much downtalking of german contributions in the last months. As if Germany should be grateful that it is allowed to pay all the others so much money.

Not to mention the immense task of re-unification is gloated at, as no other country would have been able to do what Germany did in the first place...without much help by our "friends and allies".

If we want to help but not without strings attached we are the Nazis again, about to win WWIII and to implement the fourth Reich.

Sometimes a German just want to show you all the finger and leave you alone...sorry if I was abit rude but our patience is severely tried.

"If you help Poles in...say....eastern Poles...don't you think there is a difference as if you would be forced to bail out...say....Greeks?"

I said in my very first post that I understand the emotional reasons for helping your countrymen. But if I spent 10 billion to help 60 million Ukrainians and 100 billion to help some 10 million Poles in Eastern Poland and I saw that Ukraine is growing quicker than Eastern Poland 1. I would ask questions about efficiency of the aid to Eastern Poland and aid in general (maybe aid has diminishing returns - it helps up to a point but not proportionally to the amount spent) 2. I wouldn't say that it's the Ukrainian portion of the help that's bleeding my budget.

"Let's wait till the pushes come to shove and Poland is asked to become a net-payer, no longer a main beneficiary!
Let's talk about polish happiness then..."

Well, you don't seem too happy so we will just do like you then - start complaining ;)

Frankly speaking, I understand you very well for the human point of view. Especially, when you must listen to Greek people who think, the only cause of their problems are greedy bankers + Anglo-American-German conspiracy (Jews, of course, as well).
But, said this all, from political point of view you do not have any other choice than to deliver (and pay for) the medicine, otherwise you got infected.
I understand, Ich bin ein Berliner. Good night!

"Actually the opinion Germans have of Poles change alot to the better in the last years watching Poland getting really things done.
We appreciate that."

Finally something nice...Poles' opinions of Germans changed too. (Well, for some things they were always good - we always liked things "made in Germany" - when I was in school growing in Canada I liked to buy the Steadtler rubbers because it said "made in Germany" on them - I'm not kidding).

But in some comments you sounded as if you believed that Germany handed money to societies that did absolutely nothing, had to rely on this aid to survive and then were ungrateful on top of things.

I am afraid you are forgetting fact of crucial importance while describing Germany's unquestioned contribution to EU budget. Namely, you have to be aware that that this money is not charity! For one thing, obvious as it is, people in Germany seem not to realize that it is in their country's best interest to have stable, developing neighbors in the east. For another thing - and this is much more important - German money flowing eastwards is an INVESTMENT. Have you ever been in Poland, for instance? Do you know that the famous EU-funded infrastructure is built by Hochtief? Do you know that people go to Rossmann to buy Schwarkopf, Nivea, etc.? That they buy food at Lidl? That they withdraw money from Deutsche Bank? I could go on and on. Some time ago, I visited Hungary for the first time and wanted to buy some typially Hungarian food products to bring home as gifts. However, whenever I got into a store all I saw was German products! Anyway, the stores were German too...

Please do not get me wrong: I am not saying this is wrong in any way or that Eastern Europeans should boycott Germany or anything, in fact, I like Germany and Germans very much and even speak German quite well. I'm just saying that Germans should be aware of the fact that inviting Eastern Europe to join the EU and giving them EU-funds was not an act of charity but rather an investment which was beneficial to both sides.

"First of all, Germany does not owe living to the rest of the EU members"

If the rest of the EU agrees with your approach, then it's every man for himself, the EU is toast, and German exports (and the rest of the German economy) will collapse. Viewpoints like this are a big reason people are worried the EU is in big trouble.

>> Not to mention the immense task of re-unification is gloated at, as no other country would have been able to do what Germany did in the first place...without much help by our "friends and allies".

Well, actually when Poland in 1918 regained independence after over 100 years, it was created from reunited parts of 3 different countries (Germanz, Austria, Russia). With 3 different currencies, political systems vastly different, some parts had road traffic on the right, some on the left, there was different rails standards (different width). Somehow it has been done regardless.

So reunification of Germany isn't as unique as you seem to think it is. Not to say it's not great - it is. It would be shame to have Belarusia style socialism relict in the west, so I'm happy that Germany did reunited.

Regarding north stream - it's shame Europe is dancing to Russian music. This investment is meant mainly to allow Russia to put pressure on Poland, Belarusia, Ukraine without cutting Germany (and their money) off. Now it's too late to stop this, and Poland will manage (Polish companies are already used to Russian gas being unreliable) but at least see this for what it is. And this is not an economical investment, but political one.

"Uk correction" means that the British get special treatment and pay less than the EU rules dictate to the EU budget. If they were treated like everyone else, they - as a rich nation - would have to contribute much more than they actually do.

As much as there is responsibility on the side of the recklessly spending countries, there is also responsibility on the selfishness of the frugal countries, especially since most of those countries claim the higher moral ground as being better and smarter. If the heads of banks and policy makers of the frugal countries were smarter and better than the policy makers of the reckless countries (as they proudly claim), then they'd have known these countries to be reckless in spending, and therefore high risk clients, and wouldn't have lent them money beyond their means of repaying back, but that didn't stop them from lending them even more money at very cheap rates.
Since the poorer and less smarter countries were not the big heads that called the shots (of allowing reckless countries to borrow under german yields), then these countries can/will point the finger of responsibility to the better off countries.
So this pointing fingers can go on endlessly, but it would be to no avail.
So whose fault is it? Well it always takes two to tango, with one leading the way, and the other one following....

Gopem, absolutely correct, don't even get me started on those international banksters ;)
First we (the tax payers) have to bail them out, and then we have to bail out countries to pay their debt to the banksters... and they are still themselves handsome bonuses... I wonder comes next?

Attributing organised mass rape to the Serbian dinar will not do. Neither will turning Kant upside down.
Save the euro? The euro needs to be saved from being reduced to toilet paper. If the ECB is allowed to do its job, the euro does not need saving.
Greece sabotaged efficiently all efforts to save it.
If Italy or Spain needs to be "saved", there is not enough money to do a bailout, not in Germany nor anywhere in Europe. They have to save themselves and they have the means to do it. (read my lips: new taxes for the cronies of Berlusconi and Samaras)
Saving banks would amount to another round of bankers'socialism. With the U.S. and Britain blocking regulation and the Tobin tax again, not an option.
The EU is already a transfer union with all sorts of structural fonds. Doing more in that respect, even some sort of Marshall plan might be a good idea, but remember, the Marshall plan started in Germany with occupation and military government. The Greek can't even stand the officials from IMF and European Commission.
But opening the floodgates of inflation is out of the question. That would spell disaster, not only for Poland. "Quantitative easing" or the famous instability bonds is just gobbledigook for robbing the poor. The amount of money they are talking about will trigger unstoppable inflation, instoppable because of the amount and unstoppable because of the massive loss of credibility. If you are rich, you can easily dodge inflation. If you are poor, you cannot. The poor are better off with austerity, if applied in a fair manner, i. e. not what Greece is doing at the moment.

All this talk of "saving the euro" is a big hoax. It is all about taking a huge amount of taxpayers money and redistributing it. If the times are dire enough to warrant such a step, why prop up the financial system rather than investing directly in infrastructure? All this money should not end up in the pockets of City bankers.

This crisis originated in the US, because of excess lending and almost no savings.
This QE solution is only monetizing debt, and will eventually result in destroying savings and rewarding excess spenders.
When a "solution" punishes good behaviour and rewards those responsible for this crisis, it means that the system is doomed.

First: Re E.L., "Trade between the ten "new" EU members and the 15 "old" ones had risen from €51 trillion in 1995 to €222 trillion now. "....

That's just amazing considering the entire world trade (exports) was put by the WTO at $12 trillion for 2009....

Re Mr Sikorski: "That trade boom, he argued, had if anything cushioned the the "West European welfare states" from facing reality" Oh really, that is a bit rich when considering Poland is the greatest net beneficiary (it was Greece before) of the EU budget for the last 4 years, but surely, that is only coincidental with the good the development Poland saw the last 4 years, isn't it?

..."Then came the crunch, headlined "What does Poland ask of Germany?". First came six points Mr Sikorski wanted Germany to acknowledge:

1) it is the biggest beneficiary of the current arrangements and therefore under the biggest obligation to sustain them
-----> Also true is that Germany is already contributing the biggest share, since decades!
2) it is not the "innocent victim of others' profligacy...You, who should have known better, have also broken the Growth and Stability Pact...your banks...recklessly bought risky bonds"
-----> Also true is that it was first and foremost reckless countries spending money they did not have. Germany broke the rules too, but then had to deal with re-unification - without any outside help.
3) the crisis has lowered Germany's borrowing costs
-----> The Euro 'allowed' reckless countries to get credit at German rates. The markets correcting this now.
4) if its neighbours' economies implode, it will suffer
-----> True, but not as much as the neighbours'.
5) the danger of collapse is greater than the danger of inflation
-----> Always wrong, it is just the Germans learned this lesson
6) "your size and your history" mean a "special responsibility to preserve peace and democracy on the continent".
-----> Sure, and I see them trying hard, even they were not elected to do or pay for that.

All in all together Mr Sikorski's statement amounts to nothing more than emotional blackmailing, guised as well meant advise to Germany.

He wants more political EU governance but excludes fiscal (taxation) elements, which is exactly what is needed for a functioning of the Euro. However, the same time he pleads for more fiscal integration (???), but that appears only to be relating to the ECB and printing money....

thanks for pointing out the trillions/billions--I have amended the text. Oddly it is usually the other way round -- milliard in Polish is billion in English, and billion in Polish is trillion in English. Anyway I don't think it detracts from the point of the speech

Like the average German, you re in denial. Germany broke the stability pact not because of reunification costs (and even if it was true, why? Because the reunification procedures were botched from the beginning) The breach of the rules was due to lack of competitivenss of German economy and its high wage and social costs. It took Germany 10 years to correct this (with the support of other EU countries who consumed its products during the adjustment phase) and now you expect other countries to adjust in 2 months. Keep on dreaming.
When Germany breaks the rules its out of necessity, while when others due is recklessness. Double standards....

Your "contribution" just reveal how yYour logic (or rather the lackof) is appaling and you call mr Sikorski stupid. Well, arrogance is not a privilege of the smart. You re allowed too

Sorry to hurt your feeling, but I am not German, not even an average one!
The point is that the countries had the time (and the surplus money given from i.e. Germany, UK etc) to clean up their act. But they didn't. Instead they took a free ride on loans at German rates. Everyone years back could see that this will not end in a good way, unfortunately the Germans, British, etc had no way preventing that. The British thankfully did not join the mad currency for obvious reasons. The Germans, as usual, were 'made' to do so....

I don't see a problem that Germany don't help when Greek and Co. don't even doing their job to help themself. Sell your access, infrastructure building, pushing growth....Then you can ask other nations for help. Why Germany have to give you money to pay your interest to keep you float above the water..

"It took Germany 10 years to correct this [deficit] ... and now you expect other countries to adjust in 2 months."

Oh, terrible misunderstanding. We are so sorry. Of course you can continue to spend as much money as you want, that's fine. You know for a moment there, I thought you wanted to use our money and/or abuse the ECB.

Assuming Germany has been paying this amount for the last 20 years (which is probably exaggerated), it amounts to 160 billion euros, or slightly more than 10% of the amount it paid for East Germany. And to what effect? According to some, quite disappointing. Several Eastern European countries achieved better rates of growth than East Germany without the massive help.

"Germany’s political unification has succeeded; its economic unification has not. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin wall, GDP per capita in the formerly communist area is 69% of that of the former Federal Republic of Germany including West Berlin. This value sounds better than it is, as it is artificially inflated by civil servants’ wages and salaries, which have reached West German levels. East Germany’s privately produced GDP per capita is only about 66% of the West German level. Moreover, a substantial part of the convergence is explained by West Germany’s slow growth and the outmigration from East Germany.
If the new citizens had to feed themselves, the still lower cost of living in the East would let them achieve a standard of living of slightly more than 70% of the West German level or 86% of the EU average in 2008. Regarding its own contribution to the standard of living, East Germany comes in behind Slovenia (90% of the EU average) and the Czech Republic (80%). In terms of performance, both of these countries will far outrun East Germany once the world economic crisis is over. Hungary, the Slovak Republic, and Poland are also already in the passing lane.
...
The result is especially sobering considering the gigantic reconstruction subsidies East Germany received. According to cautious estimates, a net amount of about €1.3 trillion (in current prices) flowed in from the public budget."http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4177

justine13 - that's an interesting comment you wrote. However, I do not agree with your conclusion: Net EU contributions constituting a direct transfer of wealth in hard cash. This is made possible through higher taxation in the giving country and leads to lower taxation / better social benefits in the receiving country if it behaves irresponsible. See Greece.

Your examples actually proof that it is not helping just throwing money at a problem, so your investment point does not really make sense? Also, I believe you mixed up net and gross for the German intra figures, i.e. locally collected federal tax take appears to be counted as net contribution?

Abendland, I don't know about German intra figures, if you're talking about unification I've given the figure I've seen in articles about the subject.

I'm not arguing for throwing money at a problem, I just wanted to point out that whatever net German contributions are, they are but a fraction of what they threw on East Germany.

I'm not sure about the taxation argument though. I read "Bust: Greece, the Euro and the Sovereign Debt Crisis" and it argued that the problem was cheap money - thanks to the euro, countries like Greece could borrow on terms they would never have gotten otherwise.

I mention some figures and in response you throw an emotional tantrum. Are you sure you're German?

I'm not "gloating" nor "downtalking" - merely putting things into perspective. I said in this very thread that I trust Germany more than France. Germany supported enlargement and I'm happy for that. I'm glad that the border between Poland and Germany doesn't need to be guarded and that my minister can go to Germany and speak to friends. Though people like you are obviously not part of them.

Regarding the inflow/absorption of EU funds to Poland, it's disappointing that you seem to see one side of the picture only, which is a sole benefit to Poland.

However, you probably haven't considered as to how much of the EU funds flow back to Germany and other net payers, by virtue of the payments to your companies acting as vendors/suppliers in the projects being carried out in Poland, and thus increasing your country's export figures.

What perspective?
That you who only take are gloating about one who gives? And still demands more?
Without Germany there wouldn't be an EU or an EURO...what "perspective" are you talking about???
Without the billions of funds from the EU where would you be today???

Again...you've got some nerve!

>>"Germany supported enlargement and I'm happy for that. "<<

It was an error...we know that now. People like you justine made that perfectly clear to us!

No, the Eastern enlargment of the EU was a good decision. This is not the reason for the current problems. When the PIS party has been in power I also have been a bit sceptical about Poland, but the Tusk-government is indeed one of the best (if not the best) governments in Europe at the moment. And I will be also happy when Poland joins the Eurozone one day, because it will be a good ally of Germany in economic decisions.

I'm not 100% sure about that interrelation. What if they (net payers) weren't getting anything in return payments (e.g. all contracts and supplies done by local companies or from non-EU countries), yet would they not qualify to be net payers by themselves (on the basis of their economic indicators)?

Sure, tomorrow Merkel will change Germany's policy just so that justine13 feels sorry for her remarks. Jee, I didn't know I had so much sway.

"Without the billions of funds from the EU where would you be today???"

Quick research and calculation (correct me if I'm wrong)…
in 1990, Poland’s GDP was 62 billion USD, in 2003 (before EU accession) it was 216 billion USD and now it’s about 500 billion USD. So it grew by 250% in the 13 years before accession and by 120% in the 7 years after accession. We got some 90 billion USD from the EU so about 1/3 (500-216) of the growth in the last 7 years can be attributed to the EU.

And BTW, how do you feel about East Germans? Are they grateful enough? I saw the movie "Goodbye Lenin" (and didn't like it because I don't like pro-communist nostalgia).

I have to add, you did not take into account the GDP per capita adjusted with PPP. Not 1/3 but much lower percentage of that growth (the highest in Europe!) can be attributed to direct EU funds. As far as the EU influence is concerned, it was rather the political and business culture, law etc. rather than money. Money itself can be spend on drinks and siesta (vide Greece).

You are right. Poland has taken a much better economic development than Eastern Germany. And i also agree with you that "Goodbye Lenin" was a bad movie. I have never understood the excitement for this movie in Germany. Indeed the Poles understood the lessons of the communist era much better than the Eastern Germans.

So? Do you believe Germans do not have the obligation to be grateful for the help they receive from other Germans? Or do you believe East Germans are uniformly grateful?

One East German girl I met in 2005 told me she felt West Germans still looked down on East Germans and she was obviously bitter about it. Another East German woman I knew said she felt like she lost her country because West Germany just "took over" East Germany and replaced all its institutions and laws (some of which she believed were better). She recommended the movie "Goodbye Lenin" to me and obviously the movie resonates with some East Germans. On one hand, I didn't agree because as I said I don't like pro-communist nostalgia. On the other hand, I understand a little. Other post-communist societies did the transition themselves and they "own" the outcomes whatever they are. For East Germans it's more complicated. In any case, there are obviously some issues so why can't you respond?

Hey Justine, I think you have just mentioned something very important:

"Other post-communist societies did the transition themselves and they "own" the outcomes whatever they are."

I think the importance of that has been highly underestimated very often in history, e.g. when the USA (with good intentions) tried to force democracy on others over night. And it is underestimated today e.g. in Greece. Changes cannot be forced over night, it is impossible, and they have to come from "within" a society, voluntarily. So even if Greece improves to the better sooner or later, there will always be a certain bad "aftertaste".

Unfortunatelly the silly design of the Euro doesn't allow a smooth exit from the Euro, so the Greeks can only choose between pest and cholera.

"Oh really, that is a bit rich when considering Poland is the greatest net beneficiary (it was Greece before) of the EU budget for the last 4 years" - it is true that Poland is EU net beneficiary, but it doesn't make his argument any less true either.
"but surely, that is only coincidental with the good the development Poland saw the last 4 years" - it is no coincidence by any means - Poland is experiencing boom since it joined EU but EU money is only partly responsible for that. The common market, stability and credibility were much more important. Also the legal and political requirements that Poland needed to meet to join the EU helped a lot (it is still far from being perfect, but Polish legal system, competitiveness and economic freedom are much more "West" alike than 5-6 years ago. It was a major shift.
Ad 1. Sikorski doesn't neglect that fact, just reminds the obvious. It is not that Germany are only pouring money to the jar, they are beneficiaries as well - especially in case of Euro.
Ad. 2. So basically German's reasons were viable, and others - not? The stability act wasn't working from the very beginning and all it's architects are responsible - including Germany.
Ad. 3. It is a matter of opinion to some extent. In my opinion Germany is a beneficiary of its reputation. True, they earned it, but Sikorski just brings facts - the Germany's borrowing costs skunked. There is a panic on the markets and the peripheries are hit by it. For me it is quite astonish, that Italy is paying for its bonds higher yield than I pay interests on my car - almost twice as much. And believe me - I am more likely to default than Italy:)
Ad.4 According to you it will suffer less than others, but it will suffer anyway. Is that making Sikorsky's point less true?
Ad. 5. Inflation is a b....., but you can fight it. Poland had major inflation problem (among many other economic difficulties)in the early 90' but it worked it out. Because it is curable. If EU collapses - there may be nothing do save. Westerners tend to take many things for granted and sometimes don't realize how EU is essential to maintain stability, prosperity and peace.
Ad 6. Believe me, it was not easy for polish politician to acknowledge the fact, that Germany is an sole European leader. Germans may not like it and might not vote for it, but unfortunately it is a fact. And it is not just about pouring money, it is more about firm leadership.

"All in all together Mr Sikorski's statement amounts to nothing more than emotional blackmailing," - it is a statement of support. Poland didn't take part in the whole Euro crisis affair - firstly it is not in Eurozone, secondly, left a silent support. But when the whole EU concept is at stake, it's foreign minister expressed it's concerns. It is understandable in my opinion.

"ECB printing money" is not a part of fiscal policy. And taxation levels doesn’t need to be unified to achieve more fiscal integration. However, the tax code should be harmonized but for different reasons - it would make making business in different EU states cheaper and less risky.

"The man is obviously dangerously stupid." - not so obvious for me and your arguments (which doesn’t prove the point anyway), even if we agree that your points are correct (which I do not agree), we couldn't on that basis judge men's intellectual proficiency. You do not agree with him, ok, but you do not need to abuse. In my opinion his career is somehow impressive:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw_Sikorski

You aer genereally the type of person that was mentioned in some comment before.
You would gladly stick to your vision of life and level of living while watching as the world reigns fire and annihilates itself. You do not wish to take any responsibility for the Europe, on which you built such strong fundamentals.

Le the Europe burn, just wait how much that affects you and history judges your pittyful arrogance.

Mike W. - I find your comment rather insulting, that is, as I do have a heart and feelings. I also see myself a generous person - however, I am not stupid and I value fairness (which also applies to those Germanz)

If you have to criticism towards me or any other person, please voice it in a manner people are able to understand and respond to it. Who knows, you might be able to change their hearts and minds then???

Jore Relanzon - Your comment is full of hate and I deem you a very spiteful person indeed. I therefore refuse to have a discussion with you, unless you actually read and understand my comments and can lead a meaningful discussion without insulting anyone. Ta, Abendland

I am not racist. I am not hateful. I believe Spain is considered one of the least racist countries in Europe, and also one of the most welcoming with foreigners. We don't have any big racist party (unlike most of the other European countries), and I'm proud of that. I don't think I'm arrogant either. I think the attitude of "We don't need EU as much as the EU needs us", or "If the Euro falls we will suffer, but the less favored countries in the EU will suffer even more, so we don't care" seems to be more arrogant to me..

"Jore Relanzon - Your comment is full of hate and I deem you a very spiteful person indeed. I therefore refuse to have a discussion with you, unless you actually read and understand my comments and can lead a meaningful discussion without insulting anyone. Ta, Abendland"

at_PL - thank you for your thoughtful response. Let me make one thing clear: This is not about having a go at Poland, quite to the contrary, I rather to admire the country and their current leadership generally for their smart economic views (read prudent). I also agree with many of the Polish commentators on here like Justine13 who are rightly advertising these achievements in an inclusive european, not-gloating way.

However, I do consider comments as stupid (dangerous even) from any person of any nation saying that having a common currency without fiscal union (read taxation) is a good idea. Even more damning thing is asking to print money to pay for debt. If this is coming from a country like Poland, which I considered as prudent, I am genuinely shell-shocked. BTW, is that the opinion of the whole of the Polish government?

I live a country where inflation in my opinion is already close to the point of being out of control. The problem with inflation is that at some point it becomes a uncontrollable runaway process. The people who will suffer most will be the lower income people and people who were prudent savers. I think the Germans, Dutch, Austrians etc etc are right on this one.

The markets were flooded today world wide with QE to prevent a worsening credit crunsh... FOR INSTITUTIONS! Also the Chinese are in.

I hope the discussions about abusing a central bank to decrease government deficits at the expanse of their own population won't continue now. If our politicians learnt that they could simply rely on a central bank if they mismanage their households, we were all doomed.

Thank you for your answer. Actually, I didn’t got an impression that you are having a go at Poland - I didn't respond to you because of some patriotic sentiments - I just don't think is right to call someone "dangerously stupid" on the sole basis of not agreeing with that person. Moreover, I've got an impression that you didn't actually read the transcript of the speech and your opinion is based on some exaggerations.
Just to clarify - I am not QE supporter either - I just do think that saying about inflation as the worst thing that could happen to a country (or UE in that case) as wrong. I read the Sikorsky's speech carefully and I didn't get impression that he supports printing money either. When it comes to fiscal policy - fiscal union is a must for a common currency to survive, but I am not that much convinced, that it equals same tax rates in every single country.

Michel, you and Abendland have brought up the fact that Poland and other CEE countries have thrived because they are net-recepients of EU funds, but [A] it's not the only reason, and [B] you forget that while CEE receives loads of money, some of it is compensated by exports to CEE and - most importantly - by far more money is made from direct investment in these countries. [A] As for Poland, EU transfers were one element of a relatively healthy economy; others, probably more important: relatively low labour costs and immediate proximity of EU and Germany in particular which fueled exports; Polish zloty which cushioned economic slowdowns - when exchange rate to euro fell, it helped exports and made slowdowns less painful; the capacity of the German, British, Irish, Norwegian, Dutch labour markets to absorb workers from Poland - part of their wages were transfered back to Poland; the size of the market making it an attractive place of direct foreign investment. [B] Native companies are really few, most were sold to investors from EU and US (and other countries), which make huge profits on them. And quite often local profits are transferred home to avoid local corporate tax.

Michel_Berlin, I hope you realise that Germany never paid a penny to Poland for WWII, and if it did Poles would be very rich today and Germans would be begging for help all over Europe. It would be many many times more than anything you pay to the common EU budget.

Consider yourself the beneficiary of the Poles. After all one must always pay one's debts, no?

Well apparently this rule only applies to non-Germans. Germany defaulted on its debts countless time during the 20th century and millions of hard working Americans who had bought German bonds lost their money.

Germany itself was forgiven all its debts after the war by other Europeans and Americans in the London debt conference of 1953 - see link below.

However Germans like Michel Berlin will have a fit at the thought of Germany forgiving debts of other countries.

"...during the 20th century, Germany was responsible for what were the biggest national bankruptcies in recent history. It is only thanks to the United States, which sacrificed vast amounts of money after both World War I and World War II, that Germany is financially stable today and holds the status of Europe's headmaster. That fact, unfortunately, often seems to be forgotten.

America immediately took steps to ensure there wouldn't be a repeat of high reparations demands made on Germany. all such demands were put on the backburner until Germany's future reunification. For Germany, that was a life-saving gesture, and it was the actual financial basis of the Wirtschaftswunder, or economic miracle (that began in the 1950s).

** But it also meant that the victims of the German occupation in Europe also had to forgo reparations, including the Greeks ***

After the first default during the 1930s, the US gave Germany a "haircut" in 1953, reducing its debt problem to practically nothing. Germany has been in a very good position ever since, even as other Europeans were forced to endure the burdens of World War II and the consequences of the German occupation. Germany even had a period of non-payment in 1990."

**************************************************************

It is amazing that a country that received so much of debt forgivness by its former enenmies can produce citizens like Michel Berlin who won't even repay 1% of the kindness and generosity that Germans received from others when it was in trouble.

The western territories we have we got from USSR (who had eastern Germany after WW2), in exchange of the eastern territories of pre-WW2 Poland (which USSR incorporated). Thanks to that Poland moved 100 kilometers to the west, and what was central Poland during most of Polish history (Lublin, Białystok, Rzeszów), is now eastern Poland.

Neither Poland nor Germany had any say if we wanted to make that exchange.

>>"How much would you value half of Poland full of towns and villages that Poland lost after the victors had drawn the new borders? I think you still owe us some 35% of prewar Poland's territory."<<

Please ask that the Russians.

You got more than enough in reparations from Germany with german lands and german towns. To tell Germany they hadn't to pay you is outrageous. My own families city (Breslau) is now fully polish.
That was a steep price to pay!

"But Poland got big parts of former German territories from (Eastern Prussia and Silesia) after the war. This can be seen as a huge reparation."

Actually, no. Germany didn't give the territories to Poland only to the USSR. The USSR gave them to Poland in return for the territories they took from us in the East. They took ca. 50% of Poland! The ex-German territories are only like 15% of prewar Poland, so the deal doesn't even recompensate us for our losses to the USSR. And yes, the Poles that lived there were expelled too.

Anyway, it wasn't any kind of payment from Germany to Poland. Germany still owes Poland reparations for the war and it likely would be the largest payment ever, if you consider that Warsaw alone suffered twice as large losses (in people, buildings, infrastructure etc.) as Nagasaki and Hiroshima together.

And of course it's not like it's some kind of money no one needs to pay. In fact debts never go away, someone always has to pay them. Poles still pay, even today, for the things Germans ruined over half a century ago, and I assure you we (even those moderate among us) don't like it. No one ever likes paying someone else's debts.

Now, I'm not saying it to blame young Germans for the war, only to make you realise that Sikorski made a huge gesture towards the German people.

Germany should have reopened the talks about war reparations after the reunification, so 20 years ago. They didn't because they said they'd go bankrupt. Instead, they proposed to work together within the EU and help each other prosper. This is the reason why no one brings the claims forward.

But, if eurozone collapses, it's likely that the EU will collapse as well. It will mean that all the countries will turn to Germany for the reparations, because they'll need money and they'll no longer have a reason to be friendly. Either Germany pays or there will be war, esp. if people live under much distress. It's obvious the Greeks do at the moment. They're a small country, but what if there are more countries like them? And of course if eurozone collapses Germany will be hit as well, simply because it exports a lot of stuff to those countries. So, I'm sorry to say it, but no matter what happens - you pay.

Anyway, it seems that German people think that they are always the responsible ones and the others are reckless, while the rest of Europe sees another side of the story. Those were Germans who caused the largest debts in our countries, and those debts still aren't paid. Germany is in a good shape today only because it didn't have to pay them, yet. Germans asked for help when they were in a very bad situation and they got it. They talked about EU and mutually helping each other when everything was well, but it's the first time EU faces a crisis, and they're already looking for ways to back away from their promises and avoid any responisibility for their own debts.

That's why Sikorski calls for responsibility and solidarity, because otherwise it'll turn out that the EU is not working at all. I'm afraid that a Union is like marriage. If your wife gambles all the money away, you're broke.

But, Sikorski also suggests to transform EU into a more federated state, which would give you more control over the budgets of the countries that get the money, which is really an opportunity for Germany, and this crisis could be coined into a huge gain. Which is why some politicians in Poland called Sikorski a traitor.

I don't envy you, and I understand that the Greeks were rather lenient with taxes, but that's just what your choices are. You may not have chosen the situation for yourselves (we didn't choose ours either), but you're in it nonetheless. You're not an island.

>>"It will mean that all the countries will turn to Germany for the reparations, because they'll need money and they'll no longer have a reason to be friendly. Either Germany pays or there will be war..."<<

You are absolutely deluded!

But who knows...in another way with Poland, this time withour a russian front of course, maybe there is a chance to get our territories back at last?

"You got more than enough in reparations from Germany with german lands and german towns. To tell Germany they hadn't to pay you is outrageous. My own families city (Breslau) is now fully polish.
That was a steep price to pay!"

And my own families' towns are in three different countries today. You know what's the difference between them? Mine didn't make the war against yours. So what did _they_ pay for?

Anyway, you're right. It's between Poles and the Russians. We got no territory from Germany, because it was no longer yours, so you still owe us. - see my reply to Revolution 1848

Everyone in Europe had huge losses, monetary, emotional and so on. Germany paid for its sins, or what would you the forceful seperation of a country call? It paid money as well, maybe not to all, maybe not fairly... but it paid.

Poland is a great country, with a painful history. You have no need to dig up old bills and to show them around. All you do is to remember the other side of its own wounds.

First of all, no this rule doesn't apply to only non-Germans. It's a basic economic rule without no monetary system can function.

Second, I don't see why it's important in this discussion that Germany defaulted in the past. We were hardly the only country to do so, had just lost a war, and were devastaded.

Third, I won't even go into what kind of debt was 'forgiven' or that the debt after ww1 was never payable. No, there is one small, much more important thing:
NONE of the countries that helped Germany by forgiving its debt, did so by risking themselves.

There is a huge difference between spending money so that someone can rebuild his burned house - or jumping INTO the burning house with minimal equipment, to try to help.

Yes, talking about something that took place almost seven decades ago denotes a lack of arguments about present isssues.

A great part of Germany´s industry was relocated to the U.S., USSR, Britain and France thanks to the Morgenthau Plan....and Germans are not complaining at every ocassion: hey, give me my technology, my factories, my patents...back.

"My own families city (Breslau) is now fully polish.
That was a steep price to pay!"

Steep price to pay for what? For murdering 20% of the Polish population?

For going on a murderous rampage across Poland killing 20% of its population and enabling Russia to grab huge chunks of Polish terrority by joining together with Russia to attack Poland in 1939, and bringing utter devastation, poverty and misery to Poland for years?

"Second, I don't see why it's important in this discussion that Germany defaulted in the past. We were hardly the only country to do so, had just lost a war, and were devastaded."

Don't they teach you the truth about WW1 in German schools? Germany attacked France and Belgium, not the other way around

That war was fought on French & Belgium terrority, those were the countries that were devastated. That war barely touched German terrority except at the end when the western allies entered a few miles inside German borders briefly.

Germany demanded punitive reparations from France after the Franco-Russia war. France paid them without defaulting even though reparations was a huge chunk of its GDP.

Italy, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc. supported one side against Marxism. Spain also has sympathy to the anti-Communist side led by Germany, and even if Spain was a non-belligerant country, 44,000 volunteers from Spain joined the Whermacht creating the 250th Division (Blue Divison). In fact, some hundred Spaniards joined the SS, and supported the Reich until the end in Berlin (Spanische Freiwilligen Kompanie der SS 101 and 102)

Spain was really upset because Americans joined the Marxists to defeat the Axis as it was considered that in the Spanish Civil War, Communism forces had been defeated...

But, after Stalingrad, the Spanish Government was closer to Britain as it was sure, the War was over for Germany.

The same way as American expansion took place to the West, German expansion was taking place to the East. Hitler was an admirer of America as he was a common man which didn´t belong to the Prussian Aristocracy. And for him the example was America, as a Continental Power, with expansion to the West, which limited immigration to some ethnic groups (by then) and used blacks as second class citizens (former slaves), with its car and aircraft induestries. Ford received from Hitler the highest condecoration, the Great Eagle, the same as Watson, the founder of IBM.

Had Germany won the War, by now it would have 200 million people and twice its extension. Anyway, by 2011, a new democratic Government in Germany would say, like the Governments of Australia to the Aboriginal people, or like the Government of America to Natives and Blacks: "We are sorry for what the Dictator Hitler did. We deeply reject his evil racist policies." And would pay reparations to different ethnic groups like Askenazi Jews, and would call the millions of Germans of Slavic origins, "Native Germans"....But it wouldn´t give up a single sq. Km. of the large German territory, the same way as neither Australia nor America want to lose any sq. mile of their territory....

Germany would have by now 1 million sq. Kms. and 200 million people. The second largest economy in the World, without occupation troops.

Well, Germany lost the War....anyway it is in better shape now than France or Britain, lol.

"Did you know that Poland boldly put all expelled Germans into it's losses-list? Also the Ukrainians. What Chuzpa!"

Sources?

"For artwork...you have looted the Berlinka...a treasure of german art. How about giving back looted art yourself now?"

Good old "And you are lynching Negroes" Soviet strategy... ;-) But it wouldn't work this time. Berlinka was acquired by PL from the Krzeszów Abbey, when it became the part of Polish state after 1945. It had been moved to Krzeszów by Germans during WW2, to protect from Allied bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlinka_%28art_collection%29).

"...In 1939, just before the outbreak of World War II, it had an estimated 35.1 million inhabitants. Almost a third of these were of minority groups: 13.9% Ukrainians; 10% Jews; 3.1% Belarusians; 2.3% Germans; and 3.4% percent Czechs, Lithuanians and Russians"

After 1945 Jews were dead, Germans expelled, Ukrainians, Russians and the other minorities had their own countries....nearly a fully homogenous Poland was left.

"The total cost of Nazi theft and destruction of Polish art is estimated at 20 billion dollars, or an estimated 43% of Polish cultural heritage; over 516,000 individual art pieces were looted, including 2,800 paintings by European painters; 11,000 paintings by Polish painters; 1,400 sculptures; 75,000 manuscripts; 25,000 maps; 90,000 books, including over 20,000 printed before 1800; and hundreds of thousands of other items of artistic and historical value. Germany still has much Polish material looted during World War II. For decades there have been mostly futile negotiations between Poland and Germany concerning the return of the looted property."

>>"Ok, but first of all you'd have to return all looted Polish artwork."<<

What do you think is left in Germany after full occupation for 50 years?

>>"Germany still has much Polish material looted during World War II. For decades there have been mostly futile negotiations between Poland and Germany concerning the return of the looted property.""<<

Gimme the list!

Maybe we can make a deal. But I doubt it! The Berlinka is looted art which doesn't belong to you. Give it back!

>>"And if you don't differentiate the two cases (Nazi plunder in occupied Poland vs. acquiring of Berlinka from a site within Poland's borders), there's little left to comment."<<

"polish" logic again, huh?

After your "logic" everything what is in Poland belongs to Germany...after all during the partitions there wasn't a Poland at all, and everything between prussian, austrian or russian borders!

Recently a painting was giving back to a german gallery what was looted by an american soldier...you see, that is logic!

"The Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) figure for deaths of Poles due the German occupation is 2,770,000. This figure includes 'Direct War Losses' 543,000; 'Murdered in Camps and in Pacification' 506,000; 'Deaths in prisons and Camps' 1,146,000; 'Deaths outside of prisons and Camps' 473,000; 'Murdered in Eastern Regions' 100,000; 'Deaths in other countries' 2,000. These figures include about 200,000 Polish speaking Jews who are considered Poles in Polish sources."
---

"Polish logic?"

No, that's German logic (or rather moral audacity) to twist things around, with the seemingly still existing approach to attempt to diminish responsibility, and change the roles of executors and victims.

Polish logic? Well, maybe. After all, it's Poland who had caused the outbreak of WW2... ;-)

"Had Germany won the War, by now it would have 200 million people and twice its extension. Anyway, by 2011, a new democratic Government in Germany would say, like the Governments of Australia to the Aboriginal people, or like the Government of America to Natives and Blacks: "We are sorry for what the Dictator Hitler did. We deeply reject his evil racist policies." And would pay reparations to different ethnic groups like Askenazi Jews, and would call the millions of Germans of Slavic origins, "Native Germans"....But it wouldn´t give up a single sq. Km. of the large German territory, the same way as neither Australia nor America want to lose any sq. mile of their territory...."

Why don't you take your barely concealed racism elsewhere?

Had Hitler won the war, the Ashkenazi Jews would be as dead in 2011 as they were in 1945. Poles, for example, would be dead by 1975. The plan was to kill 30 million Slavs in the first year after war. There'd be no one left to appologize to, just as no one ever appologizes to the Old Prussians (ever heard of them?). Another effect of German colonization.

It's quite scary how the Nazi crap is still alive in the heads of some Germans. Go find yourself some harmless hobby instead of dreaming of Lebensraum.

I would like to think that they do teach us the truth about WW1 in school.

As a matter of fact we were taught that the first country to declare war was Austria on Serbia as a reaction of the killing of Franz Ferdinand. That started a chain reaction.

Furthermore, are you saying that in a war only one side suffered, because battles happened on their territory?

And frankly, the matter of reperations is just a way for the winner to get "satisfaction" under the guise of justice.

But more important, you seem to miss my point entirely: I'm not saying that other countries didn't suffer too, I'm saying that the discussion now is entirely pointless.
We live in a different world, with different requirements and different problems. The last 50 years have turned power balances more than one time around.

"After the Franco-Prussian War, according to conditions of Treaty of Frankfurt (May 10, 1871), France was obliged to pay a war indemnity of 5 billion gold francs in 5 years. German troops remained in parts of France until the last installment of the indemnity was paid in September 1873, before the obliged date."

"Everyone in Europe had huge losses, monetary, emotional and so on. Germany paid for its sins, or what would you the forceful seperation of a country call? It paid money as well, maybe not to all, maybe not fairly... but it paid.

"Poland is a great country, with a painful history. You have no need to dig up old bills and to show them around. All you do is to remember the other side of its own wounds."

Why is it that Germans never want to talk about their debts but are so eager to talk about the debts of everyone else? I'm not bringing WWII, and I'm not blaming you for WWII. I'm speaking about your debts that followed and that are still pending. You might like to think they're a thing of the past, but they're not. Just as the debts of the Greeks, which are also quite old, are not over. Actually it's quite surprising that Germans think that if you take a loan and don't pay it for 70 years you don't have to pay it at all. The reality is quite different, as any banker will tell you (and the Greeks have learnt the hard way), you'll have to pay the money plus the interest cummulated over 70 years.

As I said, Poles still pay your debts, today, in cash, even though it's almost 2012. How is it we cannot say the war is over and stop paying?

And please! It's not about who suffered and how. If suffering paid money, Poland would be one of the richest countries in the world. It's not about sins either. We're not talking about anyone's moral responsibility for the war. And it's not a discussion about "Germany defaulted in the past." It's also not about anyone's satisfaction, because we're not talking about virtual money, or symbollic payments. And it's not about methaphorical punishments - do you really think that I care one way or another whether your country was separated or not? And how would _that_ pay my bills?

It's about money you _still_ owe to other people. Just like when you borrow money from someone or, say, when you destroy someone's car - the owner may forgive you, agree not to prosecute you, and not bring it on every occasion, but you still have to pay for the damage, don't you? And if your grandparents made it, you inherit their debt. Not fair? I know. Still, makes more sense than me paying for your grandparents which, unfortunately, I do.

So I'm afraid it's not over, even though you wish it were, and it has nothing to do with anyone's attitude to the war, and everything with _today's_ financial claims that have to be met. Just one example from Warsaw: Germans destroyed 85% of the city. Only 7% of the buildings were state owned. The rest were in private hands. Now the children or grandchildren of the owners from all over the world claim their money for the buildings that Germans destroyed, and people like me have to pay for it, just because we live in Warsaw. It's so much not over! The losses in Warsaw caused by Germans were estimated in 2005 at $54.6 billion. If you don't pay it we have to. So no, it's not about anyone's satisfaction. It's about paying for oneself. Here's an example from Greece. Perhaps they wouldn't have such huge problems today if you paid them? After all their debts are also old. http://www.athensnews.gr/issue/13427/36592

For some reason, Germans who paid France for WWI, but paid almost to no country for WWII, believe that since WWII reparations are over. But it's not true. All other countries pay them. Even in the example of Greece above Italy paid, Germany didn't.

Oh, and people should stop confusing German debts with EU funds. Debts are debts, countries make them on their own. EU funds are an instrument of the EU. All countries pay them, no matter whether they were Allies or Axis during the war, because EU funds have nothing to do with the war. Germans are among those who pay more than new members because they're richer. But, hey, if you pay your debts to others, they'll become richer in return, and they'll pay more EU funds, while you'll be on the receiving end. In Poland, for example, some 30% of people (those who vote for Kaczyński) would favour the latter solution.

And that's what I'm saying. There are millions of people in Europe who want Germans to pay German debts. In case of crisis it may backfire at you big time. You just want to draw a line between payable and unpayable debts in a place that suits you. Other countries will draw it in a place that suits them. Your wishful thinking or attempts to end any discussion about money won't change it, because I'm only a messenger.

Hi Michel, I would likre to add a comment here:
>>"Michel_Berlin, I hope you realise that Germany never paid a penny to Poland for WWII, "<<

"How much would you value the huge territories full with german towns and villages you got after the victors had drawn the new borders?
I think you got a real payment in that..."
How many Germans know that the territory of Poland after WW2 is SMALLER than it was before? Poland was only "shifted" westwards. So, if you talk about real payments, we did not get anything (it was "zero-sum game" for as). For the real payment you should come to your beloved Russians (sorry, too many German-produced pro-Russian post read).

"But Poland got big parts of former German territories from (Eastern Prussia and Silesia) after the war. This can be seen as a huge reparation.".
Ploease do not foget, poland after WW2 is SMALLER than before. You paid to Russians, not us.

"Well..then you won't surely mind if you give the territories back and we start talking about ersatz reparations"
1) Michel, theoretically, you can do as follows: Go to Russians (or Uktainians), ask them to give back my city Lvov (or, better, PAY them), then give it me back and later I give you Breslau back. Is this OK for you? We will be also neighbourghs, friends, we will be in EU together, so where is the problem?
2) With you, germans, there is a main fundamental problem, when you look at Poland: You cannot come to terms with the fact, that the achievements of Poland (the highest aggregated growth in last 20 years in Europe) can be attributed mostly to the Poles themselves. Oh... they have "Polnischye Wirtschaft, they can only steal cars, etc...) But good work and organisation, as well as ambition? Those terms are reserved only for Germans!!. You know, my brother works in a big factory in Poland. 75% of the production goes to Germany: what they do later is to put a sticker "Made in Germany" and sell it 30% expensiver... It is very typical and common situation. Unfortunately, that is a pity, that we do do have ebough good PR, but it will come. If you are from Berlin, maybe you use city busses, manufactured, designed (!) and wholly financed by Polish company. But, the only problem is, there is no sticker "Made in Poland"..... It do not help (for the while)

>>"Germany still has much Polish material looted during World War II. For decades there have been mostly futile negotiations between Poland and Germany concerning the return of the looted property.""<<

Gimme the list:

http://kolekcje.mkidn.gov.pl/artykul/stratywojenne
Unfortunately, on that page run by Polish Ministry of Culture the list is in Polish, but it is very long. Find data about prof. Karol Estreicher, who devoted his entire life to hunt for all these things in Germany. According to the common opinions, 80% of the looted cultural heritage was lost.

You are right that actually Russia/Ukraine and not Poland gained new territories after WWII. This means my last statement was inaccurate and therefore I want to apologize. Indeed German people generally don't know enough about Poland. There are still too many prejudices in Germany about Poland. I have been in Poland once and I think it's a really great country.

The problem is that you, as the Economist-reader, are among best educated and open-minded Germans. If you take part in the discussion about Poland proposals in the context of EU crisis, that is fine. But, I have also seen "discussions" at SZ, Tegesspiegel, Welt, FAZ et al. No comment....

You are right, the general political culture in German newspaper blogs is generally quite bad. So, I also stopped to read these user comments. But the newspapers themselves and the political elite are quite sensitive about Poland. It would never be accepted when a important politician holds a populist speech against Poland. He would have to step back immediately.

"But the newspapers themselves and the political elite are quite sensitive about Poland. It would never be accepted when a important politician holds a populist speech against Poland. He would have to step back immediately."

We know it in Poland, and we do appreciate it, which is why the majority of us votes for pro-EU, pro-German parties. Angela Merkel is a very popular politician in Poland. However, there are politicians like Erica Steinbach who make quite populist speeches against Poland, and it doesn't seem she has to step back. I know that she's not that well known in Germany, but just because of her attitude towards Poland and Czech Republic, she's making Germany some very bad press in our countries.

"The yearly amount paid was reduced in 1924 and in 1929 the total sum to be paid was reduced by over 50%.

Payments ceased when Adolf Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party took power in 1933, with about one-eighth of the initial reparations paid

The final payments were made on 4 October 2010,the twentieth anniversary of German reunification."

*****************************************************************

For all the bragging by so many Germans that their schools teach them the cold hard facts about their own history, it is indeed strange that most Germans are not even aware that Versailles reparations was reduced by 50% and that Germany only paid 1/8 of the amount.

Perhaps these facts will make it very hard to blame Versailles for the rise of Hitler.

After making no payments from 1933 to 2010, Germany finally paid the last installment of its already reduced by half reparations on October 2010. The London debt conference postphoned all of Germany's reparations till reunifiction, however it took Germany 20 years after reunification to abide by the international agreement it signed in London.

So basically first the French got half of their reparations demands as it was reduced by 50% by 1929. They got 1/8 of that by 1933 and had to wait 77 years to be paid the remaining amount.

The reductions of german payments, dictated at Versailles, where made on the insight that german industrial production would in an incurable way suffer when not being reduced. John Maynard Keynes wrote an undisputedly valuable book just on this subjekt. Only blatant ignorants can oppose his analysis. Your backwardmindedness cannot see: A Gemany full of pestilence and cholera would be extermely bad for Poland and everyone else who borders D, would weaken Europe terribly. You should' nt wish for it. Warns Meergans

Srsly pal... you seem to actually think and analyze the information you get but you also seem not to be very creative when it comes down to making conclusions. Therefore, you miss the point in all of this (by this I mean the "euro crisis" etc.)and make true but not really relevant conclusions... this crisis is just another step to manipulate the people in Europe - nothing more. Its just a nice and easy way to get closer to the so called "united states of europe". The TRUTH is that people fed this crisis with their stupidity. They trust in what ever their fancy tv screen says.

Sherryblack. ( Dec 5 th ) : They - the french - got 1/8 of reparation payments until this Hitler-Person stopped it dead in 1933. Remaining amount was paid 77 years later. &++++++ interest and interest on interest. Very good business for the French i daresay. Jealous, huuuuh? Grins Meergans

S.S, in reply to Revolution 1848. This Steinbach - Woman and her populist speeches are in Poland far more known and discussed as they are in D. Populist brouhaha infects Poland miles, miles and more than it does touch Germany. Just to put dimensions right.

Such things never ever go without interest. Never, ever and no chance for the contrary. Ask your banker. I quite happily leave to you to scramble through the relevant National Archives. Papergraves, dusty and timedevouring. Shudders Meergans

They exactly got treated as loans. Bit by bit. Most of this reparation or loan papers had been "bought" by a group of American Investors. ( Helllooooo, see you again, again and again, you Investors ). This Investors never ever in mankinds history did it or do it without interest.Even Shakespeare was somehow unnerved by this.??????? spiegel online 9/28/10????CSM 10/4/10???blogs.law.harvard.edu/.../german-reparations-following-world-war-i. It should be enough now. Jitters Meergans

No, the Weimar government simply printed money to pay for reparations. It also issued German bonds to raise money to pay for reparations. Those bonds were bought by third parties so your trick didn't work this time either.

Reparations cannot be bought by anybody because it is not a loan or a bond. It is simply a sum of money that country A has to pay country B for war damages.

Country A can do a number of things like printing money or issuing bonds to 3rd parties to raise money to pay reparations to country B.

Whether you like it or not - reparation is simply a sum of money to pay for war damages. It is not a loan, it is not a bond. Period.

At the London Conference in 1953, where relevant matters where negotiated a certain Mr. Andelmann statet : " INTEREST ON THE BONDS GROWE THAT HIGH, IT HAD TO BE DOWNGRADED A FEW TIMES IN THE MEANTIME." Yes , downgraded, but not cut. There WAS INTEREST ON THESE BONDS , for Jeeesus sake.

Terence I Hale , you are so right. I regretfully stop pestering now. Thanks for listening. Says Meergans

Reparations are, among other means, fixed into a sum of money. This sum of money, for the sake of getting negotiable, takes the form of bonds. These very same bonds are managed by investors and bankers. They are not in the least interested in doing something for nothing and PUT INTEREST ON IT ! To be rewarded and to make profit. Can your synapses swallow that? Asks Meergans

"This Steinbach - Woman and her populist speeches are in Poland far more known and discussed as they are in D. Populist brouhaha infects Poland miles, miles and more than it does touch Germany. Just to put dimensions right."

It really wouldn't hurt the discussion if Meergans learnt how to read with understanding.

Now if EVERY COUNTRY delivers what he has proposed, there won't be any more crisis. Merkel needs written commintments for more fiscal integration including reform goals and budget goals, preferably in the form of EU treaties, but bilateral contracts may also help. And she needs to see action, not only promises. In return, I am pretty sure she will risk even more of her electorates' money to save the EZ.

We could see a certain form of Eurobonds. And maybe the ECB decides to temporary step in (hopefully as a result of an independent decision!). For that, Merkel might have to polish off her little coalition partner (FDP) and rely on opposition votes, but that's not so bad if it's a smooth process, it would make me even more happy to get rid of the Westerwelle-alikes.

You are entirely right that rich greedy citizens, also Germans, is a worldwide problem and tax evasion needs to be fought everywhere.

My point here is that Greece is about to collapse, and those who could afford to pay taxes don't do it because they hide their money abroud, but those who cannot are forced to do it in Greece. Moreover, those who are in charge to fight tax evasion, namely Greek MPs, are among those greedy citizens. These are no good prospects for Greece.

Nice try, but I doubt anyone will listen. Germany has developed the typical arrogance of those who see themselves as invincible. Especially the part about "the responsibility of Germany due to its size and history" is going to hit a nerve in a country that has decided not to accept any more criticism about WWII. Germany is reclaiming a long subdued moral high-ground, driven by its recent financial strength and the fact that they call the shots in this instance. Expect more stubbornness, patronizing commentary and vague hints of potential support, but not any bold steps.

You clearly have no idea at all about the inner workings of Germany. The current German government hasn't done ANY bold steps on ANY issue, because it is more concerned with clinging on for dear life than doing anything that might offend their electorate. This is especially true with the smaller coalition partner, the Free Democrats, who, would there be snap elections today, would not be in Parliament anymore. So they try to convince their electorate of their capability for action by catering to minority views and forcing everyone else to accept their fiscal ideas.

German policy at the moment is driven by a party which as 2-4% in polls, because Merkel knows that if the coalition should break, she'd be out of power. The only concept this government ever had was "Stay in power", and as such, they're constantly reacting to developments instead of acting proactively in bold steps - they wouldn't have a concept of in which direction to step to begin with!

The party with 2-4% is the FDP, the minor coalition party to the CDU which is Merkel's party. In the last few weeks the CDU has had an approval rating of around 35%, making it the stronges party. Furthermore the strongest pro-European partys are in the opposition (SPD and the Greens) making many pro-EU decisions possible. (http://www.wahlumfrage.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011-11-28_Wahlumfr...)

Furthermore Germany and Merkel aren't able to MAKE does bold steps for two reasons:
First, their constitution forbids certain solutions, such as euro bonds.
Second, the solutions Germany wants (painful austerity, more independent institutions (= less power for politicians) and no easy solution of printing money) aren't popular with the many other countries in the EU, especially France.
And remember, every single country of of the 17/27 has to agree to those "bold steps" or the cry "Nazi" and "fourth Reich" - again.

So i guess its always Germanys issue to solve the Euro Crisis? Germany is probably in the best situation to do so, sure; but why? they have been trying to resolve this for a while, especially with greece. No one wants to cut spending and actually think about how to reduce the debt, they only want to spend more and live their lives the way that they are used to, and Germany is the next cash cow to help them. What would happen once Germany gets dragged down? everyones going to be left out to dry, its a team effort to solve this, not just Germany; these Eurozone countries need to cut spending before they can start asking for help.

Unfortunately, you're right. A friend visited Greece last Summer (August) and many well-educated Greeks shocked her by saying, "Why should we do anything? The Germans can pay; it's their duty after what they did to us in the War."

Unfortunately, you're also totally wrong (and Sikorski is totally right): this is in Germany's interest, even more than in Greece's.

By all means make them trim their sails to fit their cloth. But by waiting to "help" until AFTER they have done so will be too late - you will all be down the gurgler. The (German) Committee of Economic Experts' plan is the best, and maybe by now the only, way to stabilise the eurozone.

I don't think you are reading the news. These countries, as you are saying, have been undertaking serious budget cuts for a couple of years already. That's not the issue at hand. The issue is these countries are being cut out from credit markets, with the dire consequences that implies. Of course we need to keep reforming those countries (and the whole EU), but the medicine should not kill the patient, remember that my dear German friend.

In regards to your comment "they have been trying to resolve this for a while...", this is true politically but economically it's bee the case of too little too late!!. Politics inability to deal with the Greece crisis has evolved to the EU debt crisis at hand.
Germany is not being asked to pay the bill but 1) take charge because it's the only one that can, 2)let the ECB be the lender of last resort.
If the ECB won't buy EU sovereign debt why should any non EU institution buy it?
I would also like to point to your attention that cutting spending has its limits. To much cuts will have a perverse effect on growth, thus eliminating the pains generated by spending cuts.

Let's all pray he is heard and understood by his audience. Germany should not be fixated on the history of its own disastrous inflation in the 1920ies, but also take to heart some lessons from the deflation policy of the Brüning government in the 1930ies. That "tough and orthodox" policy was driven by fear of a repeat of the inflation; it brought a strong economic contracion, mass unemployment - and led to the coming of Hitler two years later. It would not be wise to repeat that experiment on a Europe-wide scale.

I guess you are right. Anyway, I didn't intend to blame the banks in that case, offering accounts is their most natural business and they are not braking laws (though I cannot say that I like Swiss bank laws).

I think it is a shame that rich Greeks don't support their own country!

Switzerland (which is not on the Eurozone and didnt breach any stability pact like Germany) contributed with the IMF in the Bailout of Greece and its contribution is the highest relative to popultaion size that any country bar Lux.

Its not to them to help, not to China or India or eveon UK. It is to those which were involved in this mess not least Germany, the ECB and The other Eurozone countries. The ECB trated all Bond equally when the times were good now it may act accordingly. So must Germany

I think it was you who started saying that the Greek wealthy are keeping their money in Switzerland, instead of keeping it in their own country to help their people.. Of course that's true. And of course I think it's wrong. However, the pointing fingers game works for every country. As far as i know there have been plenty of cases of German rich doing the same (while the German average worker was being asked to lower their wages, there was a big scandal, a few years ago, isn't that right?)

As for your insult.. I don't know why you are saying I'm being racist.. I don't think I am. Actually, I am trying to criticize the racist attitude of Germans towards the rest of Europeans.